In other posts, I’ve talked about why one might want to develop a systematic theology “from scratch”.  Now, by “from scratch,” I don’t mean starting with a completely blank slate.  Since our thinking is a product of the history of thought, culture, and personal experience, it would be impossible to start completely without influence.  Also, it wouldn’t necessarily be beneficial.  There is a wealth of ideas and insights from the past that could be brought to bear for trying to formulate a theology.  What I mean by “from scratch” is that no religious tradition or existential metaphysical system is given de facto authority.  Also, the idea that any religious text is “holy writ” is rejected, where holy writ means a text is absolutely definite and authoritative (directly from God). Instead, the assertion is that, while there can be profound revelatory insights in these texts, they are nonetheless human attempts to make sense of reality, as it ultimately is.  So, if “holy writ” is rejected and no religious tradition is the basis for the theology, then in some sense, the endeavor is “from scratch”.

Now, the religious traditions and their scriptures can be a valuable revelatory resource (more on this later), but in the approach offered here, all possible revelatory resources will be examined for their truth value and usefulness.

A “from scratch” development process is a complex topic, so I’m dividing it into four sections that address specific aspects of the whole. Those are:

Part 1 – Introduction and Context
In this part, I’ll be giving some background for this endeavor and why developing alternative theologies might be helpful at this time in history.

Part 2 – The Approach
In this section, I’ll detail the approach taken for this endeavor. This will explain the method and processes employed.

Part 3 – Meta-Theology
Since no religious tradition or existential metaphysical system will be the starting point, it can be helpful to step back from specific systems and try to ascertain what is fundamentally going on with systems like these and how they came about in the first place.

Part 4 – A Specific Example
It’s one thing to explain the approach but quite another in its specific application. This is where the complexity of the process comes to light. So, here I’ll go through a specific example of how this approach gets applied. While I’ll be using the systematic theology I developed, the process can be applied to other attempts as well.

Part 1 – Introduction and Context

Theology

First, let me explain the type of theology I’ll be talking about – systematic theology. Theology comes in many forms. The term itself comes from two words, Theos and logos. In Greek, Theos means “God” and logos means “word”, “reason”, or “study”. So essentially, theology is an attempt to characterize God and God’s relationship with this reality.

How God is characterized varies greatly in content but also in scope or detail. This scope can range from very cursory or simple characterizations all the way to those that are comprehensive, detailed, and rigorous. The latter is what systematic theology is about. In systematic theology, there are many parts to the characterization, and they all must relate in certain specific ways.

Here are some of the hallmarks of systematic theology.

• Logically sound (following the rules of logic)
• Coherent (makes sense, nothing obscure)
• Consistent (no self-contradictions)
• Rigorous (details matter)
• Complete (doesn’t leave out anything pertinent)
• Elegant (no contrivances to overcome a problem)

Now, before I continue the discussion of systematic theology, I want to stress something important. Systematic theology should not be an end in itself. Any formulation should have its ultimate goal of having a beneficial effect on the lives of people and the world. It shouldn’t be just an academic exercise.

With all that said, let’s get started.

Context

Before we get into talking about the theology, it might be helpful to understand the context that can be driving this endeavor. After all, there are plenty of theologies out there, so why try to develop one from scratch?

To understand that, we can take a look at the religious situation and some data that has been collected by various organizations over the years concerning the religious landscape. In recent decades, there has been a significant change in this landscape.  The following data is about Christianity, but similar (although not as large) changes are occurring in other traditions and countries. This is the data gathered about Christianity in the United States and Europe. This first chart is an aggregate of various surveys over the last century for Christians in the United States:

Here’s Europe:

What these charts show is that there has been a significant increase in the rate of disaffiliation (the “nones”) starting in the 60’s in Europe and the 80’s in the United States. There does seem to be a recent stabilization of the percentages of affiliated vs. unaffiliated, at least in the US, but Gen-Z individuals are 45% non-religious and 40% of Millennials are non-religious. This means that as the older generations die off, the rate of the non-religious could go up dramatically in the next decades. Time will tell.

One question is: why this disaffiliation? Here’s what a recent (2025) study by the Pew Research Organization showed:

While there are several reasons for disaffiliating, a significant factor for becoming unaffiliated is disbelief in the religious teachings. There is a lot that could be unpacked about this disaffiliation trend, but here I want to focus on its pertinence for the subject at hand, namely, alternative religious/spiritual formulations that might be more believable and efficacious for meaningful life.

Just because someone becomes unaffiliated doesn’t necessarily mean the rejection of spirituality outright or even theism. Among the unaffiliated is a subgroup that identifies as “spiritual but not religious”. For that group, alternative formulations might be helpful because, for some people, the loss of a religious affiliation has created an existential void and subsequent psychological/spiritual issues. This is well known among the community of those who have “deconstructed” from their prior religious orientation. There are even counselors who try to help people make a healthy transition when they become unaffiliated.

On a personal note, I went through this process of “deconstruction” myself when I became unaffiliated some 30 years ago. It can be painful and disorienting, but it is possible to “reconstruct” spiritual bearings in a meaningful and profound way.

So, at this point, maybe it would be helpful to talk a little bit about my personal background and what led me to explore the idea of developing a theology of my own. I’ll be brief.

I received a degree in mechanical engineering in the early 70s and went to work for a tech company. For some 40 years, I worked as a design engineer designing machines, systems, and software. I even received 14 patents for my designs. I mention that just to suggest that I do have expertise in designing complex systems.

After a few years of work, I took a break to study at a theologically liberal seminary. My thought was that I might have a calling to be a pastor. After two years of studying the best theology and biblical resources of the time, I left seminary and went back into engineering. In those two years, my beliefs changed so much that I realized being a pastor wouldn’t work for me or a congregation.

Now, even though I left seminary, I was still a theist, but I had a lot of questions about my faith. So I went through a period of questioning and searching. I continued to study theology on my own as well as other religious systems. Then at one point I realized that none of the traditional religious systems seemed right to me. So, I became religiously unaffiliated. Then after a few more years of pondering religious/spiritual questions, I decided to see if I could come up with a theological formulation that seemed right to me. The approach I offer here is the result of that endeavor.

So, for those who do seek some level of explication in a religious/spiritual formulation, what I’ll offer here is an example of a process that might work for others as well, or at least offer some insights into why the religious systems and other worldviews today and in the past are the way they are.

Part 2 – The Approach

If the basis for a systematic theology is not a religious tradition or scripture, how could a coherent one be developed? To begin to answer that, it can be helpful to look back in history to discover how the various worldviews (including theologies) came about in the first place.

How far back can we go? Actually, we can go back to the late Paleolithic period of evolution, roughly 50,000 to 12,000 years ago. Archaeological research shows that early hominids developed the ability to create mental symbols and abstractions. Cave art, burial items, and markings on stone tools show a level of thinking that goes far beyond just the reactionary behaviors of other animals.

This ability to think symbolically and abstractly offered significant survival benefits.  Abstractions could be generated for different entities, and from their real-life experiences they could develop a sense of cause and effect. With this, various scenarios of real-life situations could be played out mentally rather than just reacting on the spot. Planning could occur, and better responses could be made during serious situations. This ability provided great advantages for surviving in a dangerous world.  Then, at some point, they may have wondered about things like illness and death.  In Neolithic burial sites (circa 30,000 years ago), items like beads, tools, and red ochre were found.  What does this mean?  We can’t know for sure, but maybe it indicates a primitive form of what we today call metaphysics.  Whether or not that is the case, we do know that over time hominids did develop something like metaphysical thinking, notably what has been described as animism (the attribution of a soul or intentionality to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena). This could make perfect sense where these early humans projected their own attributes onto the mysterious activities of other things. I consider this a type of metaphysical or religious intuition.

Inherent in this new abstract mode of mental activity was the ability to raise questions and postulate answers. Why did certain things happen the way they did? What were the underlying causes? Thus, the paradigm of question and answer arose in cognition. While at first this paradigm applied to everyday needs, eventually the postulation of answers broadened to what might be called “metaphysical” symbols and abstractions. While the archeological evidence for animism is questionable, there are depictions in cave art and burial sites that suggest the projection of intentionality to other non-hominid forms. At any rate, eventually in the historical record, myths and legends arose that have elements that reflect thinking about “hidden realms” of beings that are in some way active in the mundane realm of humans.

As human thought developed, so did the intuitions and explications about the mysteries of life. Then at one point in history, there was an explosion of this thinking during what is often called the Axial Age (roughly 800 to 200 BCE).  It was during that time that most of the major religious traditions began to form. There was enormous metaphysical speculation throughout both the East and West and their interactions through the trade routes. Then, as time went on and these ideas developed, there emerged religious systems like Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.

The point here is that as mysteries arose in life, questions were raised and answers postulated. This paradigm of question/answer continued throughout history and even continues today in both metaphysical systems and scientific endeavors.

♦ Question/Answer

So, a possible way to formulate an approach to developing a systematic theology without prior assumptions could be to employ a Question/Answer heuristic. Essentially, that means asking what the fundamental questions of existence are and what the possible answers are to those questions.

Is this a valid approach? While this heuristic was certainly implicit in metaphysical and philosophical writings throughout history, it may not have been explicitly asserted. However, the great Christian theologian, Paul Tillich, did make this explicit in his monumental Systematic Theology (three volumes). He starts his first volume by talking about his famous approach as “the method of correlation”. In this method, the first thing to do is ascertain the existential questions that are being asked at a certain moment in time and then offer answers to those questions. Now, for him the answers came from the Christian perspective, but that need not be the only one. 

We can, therefore, use this heuristic as a starting point for the development of a systematic theology “from scratch”. Since no tradition or scripture forms that basis for the theology, there must be some other basis for how the theology takes shape. For that, we can look for constraints imposed on a system.  Whereas in an engineering system the final result is specified (the constraint), in a theological system with no final constraint imposed, the constraints must come from the various components that make up the system. Here, these constraints are the very answers proposed for the various questions asked.

The first step in proceeding is to ascertain what the questions are. For that, we can look at what questions have consistently been asked throughout history.  These can be broken down into two categories: generic philosophical questions and theological questions. Then once those are determined, we can look at the commonly proposed answers to those questions.

Here’s an example. A foundational question that has been asked throughout history is how to characterize the ontology (about being) of reality. These can be described as distinctions within reality. It can be found in both generic philosophical and specific theological answers. They typically include:

• Dualism (there are at least two distinct realities); here are a couple of examples
  • A dualism between the physical and consciousness (Descartes)
  • Classic theism
• Monism (there is only One reality)
  • No real distinctions
    • Advaita Vedanta, distinctions are illusions
    • Eliminative materialism, regarding consciousness
  • Real Distinctions but no transcendence
    • Physicalism/Materialism
    • Pantheism
  • Real distinctions including transcendence of some form
    • Neoplatonism
    • Panentheism in various forms

The chosen answer to the question of ontology creates a constraint on how the rest of the theology can take its shape. Then there are many other questions/answers, both generic and theological, that create constraints. I’ll talk about these in more detail (including optional answers) later, but here’s a concise list:

Generic Questions:

• Epistemology
• Ontology
• How does reality fundamentally come to be the way it is at each moment in time?
• Meaning and Purpose (teleology)
• Free Will
• How does consciousness fit in?
• Value and morality

Theological Questions:

• The Nature of God
  • Ontology
  • Relationship of God and this reality
  • Personal / Impersonal
• Divine Action
• World Evaluation
• Teleology
• Morality
• Free Will
• Prayer
• Salvation
• The Problem of Evil
• The Afterlife

In the approach offered here, each of the answers to these questions creates an additional constraint on the theological formulation that can ensue.

♦ Finding Answers

As I mentioned earlier, the first part of the method (similar to Tillich’s “method of correlation”) is to discover the existential questions that are being asked for a particular time. That part is fairly straightforward because it just involves examining and evaluating the existential landscape of a particular time and place.  However, the next step is not so straightforward. It involves determining what can be considered the best answers to the questions.  In traditional religious systems, the answers are to be found within the tradition, scripture, and their interpretations. Without that as a confining basis, the field of possible answers becomes much broader and varied.

In that case, where can the answers come from? What resources are available to facilitate this task, and how can they be utilized?

Here are some of the resources that can be utilized.

• The Wisdom of the Ages
• The Religious Traditions
• Scriptures
• History
• History of Cultures
• Historical and Textual Criticism of Religious Texts
• Archaeology
• Anthropology
• Evolutionary Studies
• Sociology
• Sociology of Religion
• Psychology
• Psychology of Religion
• Religious Studies
• Comparative Religion
• Science
• Philosophy
• Philosophy of Religion
• Art
• Music
• Criticism
• Personal
  • Reason and Emotion (Yes, Emotion is a resource because it is integral to the value weighting of thoughts and ideas)
  • Experience – Ordinary and Religious Experience
  • Intuition – Ordinary and Religious/Metaphysical
  • Moral Sensibilities

In other words, the entire corpus of human exploration and experience can be brought to bear.

Now, each of these resources is an involved topic unto itself, but for this essay I’ll just offer a broad overview. From a practical perspective, the question is: what do they have to offer, and how can they be used to make definitive choices that can shape the systematic theology?

Resources outside our personal ones can offer both different perspectives on the major issues, as well as their answers to the pressing existential issues of their time. Those might also be relevant for our time. In some cases, the resource offers explicit answers. These could include the wisdom of the ages, the religious/metaphysical traditions, or philosophy, where various persons or groups came up with the answers. In other cases, there may not be explicit answers. The insights of these resources may require interpretations or inferences. Examples would be science, culture, art, music, history, etc. Resources like evolution, psychology, anthropology, sociology, history, cultural studies, etc. might give some insight into why certain answers were preferred in each era. This can, as well, suggest why certain answers are preferred today.

Then there is the vast scope of the criticisms that have been lodged against assertions throughout history. This provides essential counterarguments to consider.

And finally, there are the personal resources that can both generate somewhat unique answers and evaluate existing ones for their validity.

Of course, one’s own cognitive and intuitive resources play a crucial role in determining answers, but that can also be a limiting factor, just as relying on the traditions alone limits options. Also, a person’s understanding reflects all their prior exposures to previous knowledge. Without further exploration of other available resources, that can result in missing out on other analyses and solutions that have emerged over the millennia. 

A metaphor for the full gamut of these resources could be called a tool kit. Something is to be built (a systematic theology), and the full scope of the toolkit contains tools that can be utilized in many different ways to build that system. Here again, this means that the building process is complex with many optional pathways.

Let’s take a look at each of these:

Reason and Emotion
For a systematic theology, reason is an obvious resource. Many of the features of systematics rely on sound and rigorous reasoning. However, what might not be obvious is the role emotions play in the process. In the past, it has been thought that emotions taint the reasoning process. Certainly, that can be the case, but that doesn’t take into account the full scope of what emotions are and do. There has been considerable research into emotions by neuroscientists and physicians, and that research shows that emotions play a crucial role in the valuation (weighting ) of various underdetermined elements in the reasoning process. People who have had damage to the emotion-generating areas in the brain have great difficulty in making good decisions even if their basic, step-by-step reasoning processes remain intact. Now, since emotions can have a deleterious effect on sound reasoning due to confirmation bias or other emotional commitments, the bottom line is that being cognizant of what is going on with one’s emotions can make them a valuable tool instead of a hindrance.

Ordinary Experience
As people go about their daily lives, most experiences don’t have any “metaphysical” slant to them. However, sometimes things happen that may point to what William James called the “something more”. One way to think about this is with the word “profound”. Certain experiences have such a powerful impact that there is a sense that they are not just mundane experiences but rather something extraordinary. They are profound. Even non-religious people can have this sense. Examples might be a confluence of events and experiences that, when viewed holistically, seem to point to something deeper going on. Other obvious examples are when listening to music or viewing art. But even everyday experiences like viewing your child for the first time, experiencing the unrequited love of someone, or taking a hike in nature. This sense of the profound even shows up in what might be considered unexpected places such as science and mathematics. Discoveries in these areas can also have a sense of the profound. The great theologian, Paul Tillich, said that “anything can be transparent to the divine”.

Religious/Metaphysical Experience
It’s not possible to determine a strict delineation between ordinary experiences and what might be called religious or metaphysical experiences. But these are types of experience that seem to be “kicked up a notch”. Now, here I’m not just talking about something over the top, as in mystical experiences. It can be any conscious experience that is so powerful that it has an extraordinary impact. They are probably not that frequent in daily life, but when they do happen, things change.

Intuitions
While a step-by-step reasoning process is an important part of the process, it does have its limits. Being so focused on details can miss out on the big picture. This is where intuition can help. Regarding the task at hand, a systematic theology, intuitions can be thought of in two domains. There are ordinary everyday intuitions and what could be called religious or metaphysical intuitions.

Ordinary intuitions give us a holistic sense of how reality comes about and proceeds. These occur all the time as we experience events and their effects. Intuitions give a rough-and-ready sense of how things are and what will happen next. They can offer quick evaluations of situations and how to respond. Over a lifetime, these intuitions get informed based on their success or failure. They offer some insight into the workings of the mundane world and what might be happening ultimately.

Religious/Metaphysical Intuitions
I think religious/metaphysical intuition is an important aspect of metaphysical thinking. Intuitions are complex and difficult to explain. That is because they are not particularly explicit by their nature. The philosopher Michael Polanyi talked about this in his book “The Tacit Dimension”.  He distinguishes two modes of knowing — the tacit mode and the explicit mode.  In the explicit mode, the knowing can be laid out in a structural manner.  Think of science, analytic philosophy, or mathematics as examples.  The tacit mode is different.  With it, he says, “We know more than we can say.” Here, think of being able to dance, play jazz, or paint a work of art.  We know how to do those things, but it might be difficult to describe how in explicit terms.

Intuition is like this.  It draws from all our cognitive and emotive processes to form what might be called a gestalt (the whole is more than the sum of the parts).  It manifests itself in a sort of “gut feeling”.  Cognition offers certain structural components to the mix, and the emotive processes offer values. 

A difference between ordinary intuitions and religious intuitions can be the addition of another component in the mix.  That additional component is a sense of the divine or what is fundamental. Calvin called this a “sensus divinitatis,” and Tillich called it “the mystical a priori”. This could also be thought of as both a sense and a longing.  As I mentioned before, there is a sense, as William James put it, of  “something more”.  Something more profound and ultimate beyond our mere mundane existence. But there can also be a longing to be connected and participate in that More.  Augustine put it well, “Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee”.

This sense is said to be sui generis, of its own kind and not derivable from something else.  While I think this is true, there can also be a danger here.  That danger can come in the form of seeing revelation as something detached from the rest of our makeup.  When that happens, it neglects the effect of the receiving subject and can lead to dogmatism. Instead, the sense of the divine is intertwined with everything about us — our cognition, emotions, values, our embodiment, our culture, our personal temperament, history, etc.  Just like with all our senses, what is received must be interpreted, and it will be interpreted within the full gamut of who we are and our place in time and culture.

So, what’s going on here with all this diversity in metaphysical ideas? It has to do with the milieu of ideas going on in the various cultures of their time and a focus on certain issues.  For the early religious thinkers, the metaphysical and intuitional thinking was shaped by the times they were living in. They did their best to make sense of things and used their perceptions and insight to try to provide answers to the deep questions posed.

This diversity raises the obvious issue, “they can’t all be right”. There seem to be conflicting and irreconcilable differences in the major lines of religious and metaphysical thinking. Which one gets it right?  The problem with that question is that it comes down to an all-or-nothing dichotomy. But what if there are gems of wisdom to be found within the various formulations, but none get everything “right”? Without “holy writ,” this would not be surprising. Now, there can be some common threads across the various systems perhaps at high levels, but there are also strong differences. If there is no absolute commitment to a particular tradition, then it is legitimate to ‘pick and choose’ what makes sense and reject what doesn’t. Even within the traditions, this has happened all the time, as various sects have arisen over time that still claim to be part of the tradition. Intuition can try to suss out what makes sense and what doesn’t. This is part of the development “from scratch”.

So, what religious intuitions are we talking about? This is where things get a bit vague.  If the finite participates in the infinite and the mundane participates in the divine, then how is this possible, and how could it be described?  A metaphor might be apt here.  Think of a porous gradient. Instead of a sharp transition, a gradient gradually changes from one state to another.  Theologically speaking, there is no divide to be breached but rather a depth to be explored.  If this gradient is porous, then the transcendent divine depth can be present and experienced in this reality and to us.

Often this presence of the divine is characterized in what is called a religious experience. Mystics, as well as ordinary people, may experience this as being ineffable — words seem inadequate to describe it.   We have the accounts of mystics who have what they call ineffable experiences of oneness, a union of the self with something deeper, and even a negation experience like the dark night of the soul. However, these religious experiences also need not be something dramatic. There are more common experiences that can occur at any moment or event in life, such as feelings of wonder in nature, getting a profound sense of beauty in music or art, or knowing something is morally wrong, etc.  Or even indescribable moments where love seems to break down barriers and offers a sense of communion.  The list goes on and on.  However, there is something about these experiences that says loud and clear: there is an ultimately profound presence in life. Paul Tillich recounts one of these when he saw a painting that had comforted him in battle during World War I.  As he says, in the painting he saw beauty itself.  These experiences speak to an ultimate that can be grasped, perhaps momentarily, but still with profound effect.  They enter our psyche and shape our intuitions about reality.

There is also another way that religious intuitions come into play.  To illustrate this, let me offer a musical metaphor.  One way to tune a guitar is to strike a string at a fret where the pitch is the same as another string. If the second string is tuned to the same pitch as the first, you can see it vibrate vigorously as well. There is consonance, and they resonate together.  If they are not in tune, the second string does nothing or, at best, vibrates weakly.  There is a dissonance. 

If there is a deep presence of the divine within us, then when we come across something that may speak to that presence, it may resonate within us or not.  There can be consonance (agreement) or dissonance (something is off).  So, let’s take a look at what intuitions are.

Religious intuitions are formed by individuals.  As such, they are formed within the filters and biases of our personality type, our culture, and the context. If they are actually a presentation of the divine, that presentation will be interpreted by many factors. So, just like other intuitions, they need to be informed. Hopefully, what we get is what I call informed intuitions. Accordingly, they need to be tested in whatever means possible.  We have a wealth of knowledge and wisdom literature now at our disposal.  We have science, philosophy, psychology, etc. that can provide a helpful therapeutic for moderating the subjective tainting of our intuitions.  Test, test, test is the mantra to employ. After all, this informing is also part of reality’s participation in the divine.

The religious formulations of the past also found agreement with the intuitions of their adherents, or they would not have taken hold.  But that was then, and our intuitions today can avail themselves of all the resources we have now.  They can become more informed.

While they may be flawed and continually need refining, religious intuitions are an essential resource for developing a theology. They may not be perfect, but they do speak to a sensibility of the divine that should not be ignored.  They can offer another testing point as the theology develops.  If a certain idea or concept conflicts with a religious intuition, that can be a red flag to be evaluated.  If we do, in fact, participate in the divine, then our sense of the divine, however fragmentary and imperfect it may be, should be taken very seriously.  Many times in developing a theology or worldview a judgement call is necessary. A conflict with a religious intuition can come from two directions.  It can come from a position that denies religion or religious knowledge, on the one hand, or it can come from an idea that rejects a certain intuitive position. Both should be taken seriously because they can be helpful in fine-tuning an intuition.  It is only through failure and criticism that progress can be made.

So, given the tentativeness of religious intuitions, those who seek certainty will be disappointed. Faith (trust) is required, but not blind faith or faith without evidence.  This is the nature of faith. We do the best we can but then courageously and humbly commit to something — even if we may be wrong, at least in part.

Moral Sensibilities
The debate about the basis for morality and moral responsibility has gone on for millennia. Essentially, the debate focuses on the question of whether or not there is an objective basis for morality. Are moral decisions merely subjective preferences, or is there something objective that impinges on or influences those decisions? This is not the place to detail that debate. But as an example, is it objectively wrong to torture or kill some creature just for fun? Most people would say yes and that it is not just a matter of subjective opinion. Examples of this are numerous. In any case, these moral sensibilities can be a revelatory resource to add into the mix.

The Wisdom of the Ages

Hominids have been around for roughly 4-6 million years. In that vast time, there have been enormous changes within hominids themselves as well as environmental conditions. However, being a finite, vulnerable creature trying to survive and thrive has not changed. Being a finite creature presents fundamental, profound questions that continue even to today. Accordingly, over the millennia, deep thinkers as well as ordinary people have tried to make sense of things. And they did, in their own way.  It would be arrogant to think that they didn’t come up with anything useful for us today. 

Basically, the answers chosen represent a complex process of evaluating every option and choosing what seems right. Obviously, there is subjectivity in the choices. So, using this question/answer heuristic, we can go back to the question of why the religious traditions are the way they are. Their formulations came about by proposing answers to life’s existential questions using the resources they had available at the time.  How they answered those questions and how they put the answers to the various questions together resulted in the formulations we see now.

The point I’m trying to make is that as we try to grapple today with many similar issues, we shouldn’t discount or ignore the ideas and arguments throughout the history of thought.  Much can be gained by trying to evaluate the applicability and validity of previous attempts to address the deep issues that still remain. We may view some of the efforts as provincial or outdated, but many of the core ideas and concepts may still be valuable. It would be difficult to imagine a fundamental idea that has not already been addressed.  What might be unique, however, is how a system is constructed, drawing from the multitude of concepts and ideas already formulated.

Religious Traditions
While many people may not find the religious traditions compelling anymore, they can, however, be an important resource. This is also akin to the wisdom of the ages. What they have done is offer examples of how to navigate the myriad of ideas and beliefs in a culture and try to distill out certain ideas and concepts. Those can be in a more or less coherent fashion, but they can serve as the foundation for communities, rituals, guidance, practice, and a personal metaphysical framework to organize one’s life around and find meaning, purpose, guidance, and comfort.

The traditions can also offer examples of how religious systems can go wrong. They can show that if a system does not adhere to a complete systematic agenda, then there will be holes in the system that eventually lead to contrivances that do not satisfy. As I’ve said earlier, a key to developing a systematic religious formulation is to test, fail, revise, test, fail, revise again,…  So if the religious traditions no longer appeal to both the longing for something deep in one’s life and a contemporary cognitive and emotive makeup, then it can be investigated why that is the case.

Also, the religious traditions offer “solutions” to existential issues.  Those solutions can be evaluated on an individual basis to see if they fit in with a “from scratch” systematic approach. It may be that certain ideas and concepts can be “plucked” out of an overall tradition, combined with other ideas from another, and synthesized into something that works better.  Additionally, there are many theological and philosophical concepts that the traditions have in common, at least when looked at at a deeper level.  For instance, the idea of the incarnation in Christianity finds similar ideas both in Greek and Hindu thought.  Now, it makes perfect sense that the traditions that originated around the same period of time would have been aware of many common trains of thought and addressed them in their own way.  These common threads may reflect the truth of things even though they find their way into different overall formulations.

Another resource is the long history of theological thought itself throughout the centuries.  Theologians over centuries have grappled with problems in their traditions and come up with modifications to those traditions in an attempt to ameliorate problems.  How those theologians worked, what methods they used, and what solutions they came up with is a valuable resource.

Science
If there is one resource that is particularly important for theology today, I would say it is science.  After all, scientific discoveries have resulted in dramatic critiques of religious claims.  This created great conflicts between those who infer metaphysical things from science and those who seek to protect religious claims from those critiques. In my view, this is unfortunate because I think that science can be a tremendous resource for theology. We may be able to know something about the artisan from the artifact.  What a wonderful resource for probing what God is doing in creation and God’s purpose. 

Science is also a helpful therapeutic to highlight when things go off the rails.  If a theology comes in sharp conflict with established science or even a feel for how things work, then that should be a red flag to investigate further.  Now, this does not mean that everything in established science should be taken as “gospel”.  Science evolves.  Some theories in science fall away with new investigations. So a healthy level of skepticism should be in order.  There is a delicate dance of taking scientific findings seriously (and their metaphysical implications) but not without recognizing that scientific formulations are always tentative.  After all, there still remain deep mysteries in science. There are significant holes in our theories that are yet to find a satisfactory resolution.  For the theologian, it’s a judgment call.  If established science conflicts with elements within the process (say, religious and moral intuition), then that should be taken into account.

Another thing to watch out for is confirmation bias.  This has been well documented recently in psychological research.  Basically, it means that we all have the tendency to accept information that supports our pre-existing beliefs and reject, out of hand, anything that conflicts with those beliefs. So, with respect to science, we may strongly grab onto scientific theories that support our theological beliefs and dismiss other theories that do not.  As an example, when the Big Bang theory came out, religious thinkers quickly took that as support or proof for the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. While this may provide some support for the doctrine, theologians shouldn’t take that too far. While this theory gained much support in subsequent empirical explorations, other theories that may seem to validate theological supposition are much more tentative.  So, caution is in order. I think the key goal here is to be reasonable.

Philosophy
Philosophy is part of the wisdom of the ages and continues to probe both new topics and those that have been around for millennia. It can help us think and reason more clearly.  It offers guidelines for making arguments and avoiding fallacies in logic. Many philosophers both past and present offered arguments concerning God and the world. The area of metaphysics particularly highlights issues that need to be addressed. This is an enormously rich resource.

Other Resources
The number of other resources for developing a systematic theology is innumerable.  Art, culture, music, history, etc. can also offer something to the process.  They can shed light on how reality unfolds and suggest the dynamics of how God relates to the world.  The problems that we face and the solutions offered, as well as their success or failure, all offer data points for consideration.

Criticism
Theologians and groups of theologians should be self-critical as they go about their tasks. This is essential to develop a theology that can weather criticisms lodged against it.  However, theologians and their associates have their own frameworks within which they operate that have limitations within them. This is why outside criticism is invaluable. The harshest critics of a theological system can be the most valuable because they pose criticisms in the starkest terms.  Now, some of these criticisms may be over the top and not that cogent, but there are often elements of valid criticism also within them. Critical dialogues both within the theological community and from the outside are valuable resources.

It is also important to listen to the criticisms coming from the faithing community.  Eventually, there is some point where “the rubber hits the road”. This occurs in the parishes, temples, mosques, homes, etc., where adherents feel the effects of a theological formulation in their lives.  If a theology doesn’t work for the mass of adherents, this raises a red flag that should be examined.  In the final analysis, theology should be actionable and meaningful across a broad spectrum of those seeking some depth in their lives.  This is why theologians need the input of both the adherents and leaders on the ground. Those pastors, priests, imams, gurus, monks, etc. face the stark reality “in the trenches”.  A theology that doesn’t offer anything to those who deal with real life must have something wrong with it.  After all, theology is not a thing unto itself.  It’s about taking a faithing stance in real life that informs, enhances, comforts, and provides meaning and purpose to everyday people.

♦ The Method

The method for this approach is applying the question-and-answer heuristic. From the previous section, there is a list of the questions being asked. Each question has various answers that can be given. I listed some of the optional answers to the question of ontology in the example. At first, the answers proposed for each question can be considered mostly independent of the other answers. However, as the process proceeds, the answers become interdependent with each other. This is where systematics comes in.

Again, here are the characteristics of a system:

• Logically sound (following the rules of logic)
• Coherent (makes sense, nothing obscure)
• Consistent (no self-contradictions)
• Rigorous (details matter)
• Complete (doesn’t leave out anything pertinent)
• Elegant (no contrivances or brute assertions to overcome a problem)

While all of these characteristics are essential for a systematic theology, there are three that are crucial. The first, is that there are no self-contradictions. Put another way, every part of the system must be compatible with every other part. Within the question/answer heuristic, this means that no answer can be incompatible with any of the other answers. Let me repeat this because it is the crucial factor in developing this theology. Every answer must be compatible with the entire system. If a particular answer violates any other answer, it must be rejected, rethought, and at least some parts of the system must be reworked.

Second, everything pertinent must be included. By pertinent I don’t just mean metaphysical ideas. There are also existential intuitions, concerns, and beliefs that need to be considered and addressed. If they are left out, leaving only a dry academic formulation, they miss the point of theology and don’t take seriously the connection and resonance of a formulation on everyday lives.

And third, the system should be elegant. This means that there should not be any contrivances or questionable brute facts inserted. Now, in order to avoid an infinite regress, there comes a time in metaphysical systems when a brute fact must be asserted. This is normal and legitimate, but the question is where to insert the brute fact. If it is applied to avoid something problematic that may arise, that is not valid. Also, there can be many ways to include contrivances that avoid problems as well. These come in various forms, but upon examination it can become clear that they are problematic.  

Taken together, all these criteria for a systematic theology must be employed. There is no other legitimate way. When I say “there is no other legitimate way”, that doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of illegitimate methods that are often employed. I see this happening all the time in theological and metaphysical proposals. Here’s what can happen.

• Important issues are left out or unaddressed
• Inconsistencies and contradictions are ignored, not talked about, or glossed over
• The use of obscure or ambiguous language
• Equivocation – subtly changing the meaning of a word or using it outside common understandings without explanation
• Obfuscation – the deliberate act of making something confusing, or hard to understand
• The illegitimate assertion of a brute fact when further explanation seems clearly necessary

If these tactics show up in a proposal, it shouldn’t be considered a serious systematic formulation.

At this point, the answers chosen can be thought of as the criteria for the upcoming system. These criteria become the “specification” upon which the system must be built. 

♦ The Process

Of all the challenges of developing a systematic theology outside traditional theologies, the process of reconciling answers/criterion is the most difficult and arduous task. It is difficult because there are so many “moving parts”.  For each proposed criterion, the implications of that criterion for the others must be assessed. It’s kind of like a checklist. For a proposed individual criterion, the compatibility of each of the other criteria is checked. If in that process one or more of the other criteria are not compatible, the checklist fails, and something must be changed. Then, if a change is made somewhere, the checklist starts all over again. What makes this complex is that any given change may violate compatibility at a different point in the criteria checklist.

Perhaps an example would be helpful. Let’s take the question “What is the constitutional basis for how this reality comes about?” To put it another way, what causes each moment in time of this reality to be the way it is, from quantum fields (or particles) all the way to complex creatures? Now let’s say the answer is a common one: “the laws of nature”.  Ok, but what does that mean? It typically means that every moment in time is determined by mindless, non-intentional, and autonomic factors. That’s an answer that could have been chosen independent of the other answers. In this method and process, that answer has to be tested to see if it is compatible with other answers. Here are just some:

• Divine Action
• Teleology
• Free will
• Prayer
• The problem of evil

Let’s look at these individually.

Divine Action. Divine action is the theological term meaning how God acts in this reality. So, if everything is normally determined non-intentionally and autonomically, that means if God is to act in this reality is has to be in a supernatural way – intervening in the normal flow of events. That raises a new question. Is supernaturalism OK as another answer?

Teleology. Teleology means that things happen according to some purpose or plan. If the answer to the question of whether there is teleology is “yes”, then we’re once again back to supernaturalism or some form of deistic initial purpose. Are those further answers OK?

Free Will. This phrase has been butchered to no end, to the point it is almost meaningless. To be clear, what I’m talking about is the ability of an individual to make choices. Now, a choice requires there to be live options. In autonomic systems, there are no live options. If people can make choices, then the first answer (non-intentional and autonomic) is that individuals would have to be supernatural agents to make choices. Is that additional answer OK?

Hopefully, you get the picture. The other questions about prayer and the problem of evil have similar difficulties.

Now, say this supernatural idea isn’t tenable for some reason. Then the answer to how reality gets constituted moment by moment must be changed. Here’s the key point of the process. Again, if that is changed, then it has to be tested again with all the other answers.

This is why developing a sound and legitimate systematic theology is challenging. It’s complex. Just witness the enormous size of systematic theologies developed by serious theologians. Usually, they are in multiple volumes and a life’s work of study and thought.

Here are a couple of other things to mention about this process. It’s non-linear. There is a constant back and forth of proposals, failures, re-proposals, and constant testing. There is no straight line to a final result.

Second, seeing the complexity and tenuousness of metaphysical speculations should engender a deep humility about a subsequent result. Metaphysics is, by its nature is underdetermined. There are so many uncertainties at so many points in the process.

For those who see this tenuousness, one might wonder why even try. People try because worldviews matter. They shape the way we think, feel, and act. They make a difference.

If the process and result are so uncertain, what then should be the goal? I think verisimilitude is a reasonable goal. Ultimately, it comes down to “what seems right or true” (verisimilitude) for each individual or group. I use the word verisimilitude because the absolute truth may be out of reach for our finite minds. The word comes from the Latin vērīsimilitūdō, from vērī similis, vērīsimilis “having the appearance of truth”. Even though we are finite creatures with inherent limitations, since we are “children of the cosmos or God,” perhaps we can form formulations and metaphors that have verisimilitude and are efficacious in the forming of beneficial worldviews. Now, a metaphor isn’t to be taken literally, but that doesn’t mean it lacks any truth value. Even in everyday language, metaphors communicate or point to the truth of things. They work.

Now, obviously “appears to be true” or “seems right” is a subjective judgement. So be it. If “holy writ” is rejected, then what else do we have? In fact, even within the traditional religious systems, subjective judgement is constantly in play. The ongoing interpretations within the traditions amply demonstrate that. I’ve even heard various adherents say they don’t believe certain parts of the creedal statements.

In the final analysis, one’s worldview is a judgment call.

With the heuristic of question/answer as the method and process, the next step in creating a systematic formulation is to look in detail at the questions and the available answers that could be chosen.

Part 3 – Meta-Theology

In this section we’ll step back a bit from the specifics of a theology and look at things from a background or “meta” perspective.

As I mentioned earlier, the first step in the “from scratch” approach is to determine the questions being asked. I listed some of those earlier. They represent the main questions/issues that form the basis for proceeding in developing the theology. The next step is to look at the optional answers to those questions. The answer chosen for each of the questions then further advances the process.

So, for each question/issue I’ll list some of the answers commonly given for those questions. 

I break those down into two categories, generic and theological. The generic category represents answers that could be considered without respect to a theological perspective. On the other hand, the theological category looks at questions and answers that are directly related to an exploration of theistic formulations. Here is a list of the generic questions and common answers often proposed. Although each of these answers can be complex and nuanced, for the purposes of this exploration I’ll try to offer a concise explanation.

♦ Generic Questions/Issues and Options

• Epistemology (ways of knowing)
  • Apophatic – Apophatic epistemology is based on the idea that a metaphysical realm, if there is one, is so far beyond human comprehension, language, and logic that any positive statement is not possible. It only makes negative statements about that reality: “Such and such is not”
  • Metaphysical experience – in a generic sense, this could be any experience that seems to give some insight into what is most fundamental to this reality. Secular reports of this are seen coming out of the experience of mathematical insights, science, music, art, psychedelics, etc.
  • Inferences – these would be a conclusion reached that seems to follow from the “data”.
  • Metaphysical Intuition – Similar to inferences, this comes from a gestaltic impression.
  • Natural Metaphysics – similar to inferences, this is similar to archeological discoveries where inferences are made about the artisan (the maker) from the artifacts.
• Ontology
  • The One and the Many
    • Dualism – there are two radically distinct realities
    • Monism – there is only one reality, but there may be real or illusional distinctions
• How does reality fundamentally come to be as it is (get constituted) and proceed moment by moment?
  • Intentionally
  • Non-intentionally
  • Teleologically
  • Autonomically (non-teleological)
• Meaning and Purpose
  • None
  • Just initial
  • Intrinsic
• Free Will
  • Compatibilism – free will is compatible with determinism
  • Libertarianism – free will is not compatible with determinism
  • Choice – the real question (requires live options)
  • Level of freedom (constraints)
• How does Consciousness fit in?
  • Emergent
  • Fundamental
  • Dualism
  • Panpsychism – both physical and mental
  • Idealism
• Value
  • Subjective – a matter of personal preference
  • Objective – not just a matter of personal preference

Here are the questions/issues and answers within the theological realm. Many of these have similar answers to the generic questions.

♦ Theological Questions/Issues and Options

• Epistemology
  • Apophatic – we can only state what something is not
  • Revelation
    • Direct transmission (“dictation”)
    • An ingress of the divine into this reality but filtered by finite capabilities (metaphorical)
    • Metaphysical / Religious Experience
      • Mystical Experiences
      • Everyday experiences that seem revelatory
    • Natural Metaphysics (Natural Theology) – Inferring something about the Artisan (God) from the Artifact (this reality)
    • Sensus Divinitatus, Mystical a priori – a sui generis (of its own kind), Revelation of the divine
• The nature of God
  • Ontology – the relationship/participation of God in this reality
    • Deism – an absent God
    • Pantheism – Solely Immanent
    • Classic Theism – Wholly Other
    • Panentheism – Transcendent and Immanent
  • Personal vs Non-personal
  • Unchanging vs Changing – stasis or change within God
  • The Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omni….
• Divine Action
  • At inception or ongoing
  • God’s role in how this reality gets constituted
    • All events intentional
    • Interventionist (Supernaturalism)
    • Autocratic vs Dialogical – creatures have a say or not
• Teleology
  • Predetermined
  • Open and evolving
• World Assessment
  • Fundamentally flawed
    • World rejection
    • In need of salvation
  • Fundamentally as it should be
    • World affirming
    • No need for salvation or eschatology
• Free will
  • Choices or No Choices (Live options or no options)
  • Supernaturalistic
  • Intrinsic
• Prayer
  • Strictly psychological
  • Part of determining how reality gets constituted?
• The problem of evil
  • Necessary
    • Yin / Yang
    • Required for there to be virtue
  • Creation is a Mistake
    • Fallenness
    • Level of divine participation

Now, there can be other questions and answers that might be pertinent to the process, but the goal here is not to cover every possibility but rather to present a viable framework for exploration.

Up to this point, I’ve covered the approach and some details on the questions and answers. However, in order to make this more concrete and understandable, I’ll illustrate all of this by using a specific example. The example I’ll use is the systematic theology I developed over the years after I became religiously unaffiliated. While I think this formulation is a viable option with verisimilitude, there most certainly could be others. In fact, for those who are interested in systematic theology, I encourage other efforts that could be beneficial for our current situation.

Part 4 – A Specific Example

The Divine Life Communion Example

In this section, I’ll discuss a specific example of a systematic theology developed “from scratch”. As I’ve said, this example is the theology I developed over the years after I became religiously unaffiliated. The purpose of this section is not to offer a thoroughgoing or complete defense of the theology (see website essays and blog posts for this) but rather to demonstrate how the approach works specifically for developing this type of theology.

I’ve already talked about the criteria, generic and theological, where certain questions are asked and answers chosen. However, there can also be other criteria that are important for the formulation’s existential import and also its intellectual viability. After all, theology isn’t just about a set of ideas. It is about offering an impactful worldview that affects people’s view of themselves, their relation to other creatures, and the world. Here are some of those additional criteria.

♦ Additional Criteria

Verisimilitude (the appearance of being true or real.)
I chose the word verisimilitude instead of truth because I think it is important to accept the tentativeness of metaphysical speculations and theories.  There are too many viable options with lots of indeterminacy.  However, verisimilitude still requires a level of rigor and breadth where conclusions seem to be true, even if tentatively.  Now, obviously, this is a personal judgement call. Also, it should be recognized that much within the formulation is symbolic and/or metaphorical, recognizing the limitations of our finite mind.

Be systematic
There is a lot of religious and metaphysical sentiment out there.  Some of it could be thought of as a hodgepodge of ideas thrown together rather haphazardly. Some ideas may not fit together very well. They may be vague or even obscure. Also, they may be inconsistent or at odds with an empirical approach to reality.   For some people, this may work fine to enhance and guide their lives in positive ways.  If so, I’m not here to criticize it. However, in these times there are a lot of people who don’t find this approach compelling. It may seem quite a bit too haphazard and unreasonable.  A way to mitigate this problem is to be systematic in the approach.  Being systematic forces a number of necessary criteria. As I’ve listed before, these are some of the essential ones.

• Logically sound (this means following the rules of logic)
• Coherent (makes sense, nothing obscure)
• Consistent (no self-contradictions)
• Rigorous (details matter)
• Complete (doesn’t leave out anything pertinent)
• Elegant (no contrivances to overcome a problem)

Be Reasonable
Here again, this is a bit vague, but I think it is crucial.  It is an intuitive criterion.  Given our knowledge to date of how the universe works, we attain a “feeling for things”. For instance, the claims of astrology might seem unreasonable.  The miracle stories in many religious traditions might also seem unreasonable.  The bottom line is that this is a judgment call.  It’s taking in the breadth of our knowledge, intuitions, and sensibilities to determine if some ideas or conclusions are compelling or not.

Be Minimalistic
This goal is part of being reasonable. What we see in some metaphysical systems is rampant speculation. Hinduism is a prime example of this with its incredibly complex system of gods, metaphysical relationships, and levels. Even Buddhism also has a complex system of levels of metaphysical beings (not gods, per se). And then we also see this in Christianity and Islam with their angels and demons.

What minimalism entails is only including in the formulation the minimal elements that have existential import and some types of reasonable support. In other words, speculations should be reined in wherever possible unless they are essential to the formulation.

Be Science-Friendly
Closely associated with reasonableness is the goal to take the discoveries of science very seriously. Now, I use the phrase “science-friendly” because science and its discoveries are constantly changing. Accordingly, any theological formulation should be “friendly” to what could be called established science. These are discoveries that have stood the test of time and proven reliable. If some part of the theological formulation seems to stand in opposition to an established scientific finding, it should be given a good, hard look before asserting it.

While science does have its limits in its characterization of reality, it can be a very valuable resource for theology. From the perspective of theology, science is characterizing the way God has created this reality and/or how God’s ongoing activity creates it moment by moment. It could be thought of as a type of natural theology.

♦ Fundamental Theological/Metaphysical Choices

With these additional criteria chosen, the next step is to choose from the theological/metaphysical options.

As I’ve said in the section about the approach offered here, the process is to look at each individual choice and see if that choice can be reconciled with all the other choices. Now, since each choice affects the other, again, this will be a non-linear process with a back-and-forth among the choices to find a consilience among them.

So, here is a list of my choices and some of the main reasons I chose them:

• Epistemology
  • Empiricism – observations and data are taken seriously
  • Natural theology – inferences made from observing and experiencing this reality
  • Ordinary Experience – inferences made from ordinary life
  • Religious intuition / Religious experience – inferences made from “special” experiences
  • Sensus Divinitatus – a sense of the divine (Calvin)
  • Mystical a priori – a sui generis “mystical” unity and experience of the divine (Tillich)
  • Divine Depth – the transcendent presence within the depth of everything
• Ontology
  • Monistic (Aspect Monism) – Full participation
  • Divine Idealism – Addresses the “hard problem” of consciousness
  • Be personal
• Reality is constituted intentionally
  • Affirm teleology (personal and divine purpose)
  • Divine Action – ongoing divine activity
  • No supernaturalism – supernaturalism assumes non-intentional and autonomic processes constitute reality
• Be world-affirming – no world rejection
  • No eschatology (end times) or soteriology (salvation schemes)
• Affirm religious experiences and intuitions
• Affirm objective meaning
• Affirm objective value (moral realism)
• Affirm a limited libertarian free will (the ability to make choices)
• Affirm a certain type of real efficacy of prayer
• Better address the problem of evil

Be ontologically personal
This is an important requirement because inevitably people feel/sense a relationship to ultimate reality, however they conceive of it. It is also necessary for the meaning of prayer.

Reality gets constituted intentionally
This particular choice has far-reaching consequences throughout the system. At least since the Enlightenment period, the default assertion has been that reality gets constituted via autonomic, mindless, and non-intentional factors often called “the laws of nature”. Discoveries like those of Isaac Newton seemed to point in this direction. The metaphor for the workings of reality was that of a machine, just doing its inevitable thing. With this model in tow, things like teleology, libertarian free will, objective value, meaning, and purpose all seem ridiculous. Unfortunately, this remains the case for most people who think about such things. However, this is not the only plausible model for reality. What if every event in the cosmos is determined intentionally? Throughout history, there have been proposals for this. I won’t go into detail on these, but they include – Occasionalism (Al-Ghazali), Subjective idealism (George Berkeley), Theological Determinism and Divine Voluntarism (Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and others), Stoic Providentialism (Chrysippus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca), Absolute Idealism (G.W.F. Hegel, Josiah Royce, F.H. Bradley) and others. These models reject the autonomic, non-intentional constitution of reality, but they also have variations on how they view “the material” world.

This criterion is necessary for other criteria to be viable. First of all, it makes supernaturalism unnecessary and allows for non-supernatural teleology, libertarian free will, and prayer. It also supports the criteria of continuous divine action and with it, world affirmation.

No supernaturalism
The idea of supernaturalism assumes that reality gets constituted by non-intentional and autonomic factors (like the so-called laws of nature). With this assumption in place, from time to time, God violates or overrides these “laws” for some purpose. This leads to all sorts of problems with God’s relationship with the world, free will, meaning, etc.

Be world-affirming
This criterion is a bit different from the others because it is less abstract and more of a personal intuition.  The seeds of the major religious traditions emerged during what religious scholar Robert Bellah called the historic period of religious evolution (the first millennium BCE).  In that era, there was what Bellah and others similarly called a world rejection. The idea was that there is an idealized, perfect transcendent realm while this reality is fundamentally flawed. This rejection is obvious because of the soteriological formulations that arose during this period.  Soteriology is essentially about salvation schemes. This rejection leads to all sorts of “fixes,” like the eschatology in Christianity, the existence of a paradise in Islam, or the practices in Eastern thought to end the cycle of birth and rebirth and suffering.  The bottom line is that this reality is fundamentally flawed and there needs to be a “fix” in the offing. I reject this view for various theological reasons, including the implication that God is incompetent in creation (forget about the ridiculous idea of original sin). This world rejection and the soteriologies associated with it also have terrible psychological and spiritual effects.

No eschatology (end times) or soteriology (salvation schemes)
These schemes are the result of the world rejection and are detrimental both theologically and existentially. It demotivates people from doing the hard work of making this a better world, here and now.

Affirm religious experiences and intuitions
Not everything we can know about reality fits neatly into strictly cognitive or empirical categories. We have everyday intuitions about the world that we rely on all the time. We use them because they, in many cases, work.  Religious or metaphysical intuitions have been recorded throughout history.  Some include intuitions of oneness, a sense of awe and wonder,  feelings that there is a grand purpose to the universe, a sense of an ultimate moral basis, and on and on. These should be affirmed as a serious data point.

Affirm ongoing divine activity
This is an important criterion for affirming teleology and prayer.

Affirm teleology (personal and divine purpose)
Without this, personal purpose is strictly a shallow and subjective preference.

Affirm objective meaning
This affirmation avoids nihilism.

Affirm objective value (moral realism)
This is necessary to avoid mere subjective morality.

Affirm libertarian free will
Without this affirmation, everything becomes just autonomic. There would be no choices because that relies on there being live options. This is also coupled with the intentional constitution of this reality, and no supernaturalism.

Affirm the efficacy of prayer
This is a nuanced topic, but it is a necessary criterion to be actively participating in the divine. This is related to ongoing divine action, intentional constitution, and no supernaturalism.

Better address the problem of evil
This is a major problem to be addressed as adequately as possible. The ontology of monism and with it the full participation of God (more on this shortly) in this reality offers additional factors to address this issue.

Address consciousness
Subjective experience has become a major issue for many contemporary worldviews, so it needs to be addressed. The monistic ontology (aspect monism) coupled with a divine idealism offers a good option for this issue, which I’ll discuss next.

♦ Ontology
In theology, ontology has two main issues. First, there is the “nature” of God. Second, what is God’s relationship to this reality? In my choices, I chose a monistic ontology. Basically, this means there is only “the One”. However, from our experience, the One is not just a homogeneous something. There are distinctions “within the One”. This harkens back to the perennial question of “The One and the Many” that has been debated for millennia. The question then becomes how to characterize the relationship of the One and the Many.

Ontology is the bedrock of any theology. Every ontology has problems it must address. The question is whether or not a particular ontology deals adequately with those problems.

This is not a simple task because the ontologies can have variations and nuances. While this complicates the task of evaluation, there can be some no-gos that can be identified. Now, in this approach, once there is just one no-go in a criteria test for a certain formulation, that’s it for that formulation.

From a theological perspective, there are various ontologies as well. Now, there are nuances to the theological positions, but I’ll try to offer a general sense of them.              

Deism: God created this reality and then has nothing to do with it.

Pantheism says that the cosmos is God. In this view, there is no transcendent reality. There are some subtleties that are proposed for this model, but it seems to make God contingent rather than ultimate. For instance, what happens to God if this cosmos ends in a homogeneous heat death?

Classic theism is close to a dualism in that God is “wholly other” in respect to this reality. This form of dualism has all the difficulties well known with dualistic ontologies. For classical theism, the interaction between God and this reality is not ontological but typically one of God’s power in sustaining this reality.

Panentheism tries to offer some ontological unity, saying that God is, in some sense, part of this reality. In other words, God is both transcendent and immanent. The “en” in panentheism varies from what I would call a limited “en” to an all-encompassing “en”. Or, a limited participation to a full participation.

While deism, pantheism, and classical theism are fairly straightforward,  panentheism has a greater complexity in its formulations. To roughly categorize these variations, I propose that they be delineated using the concept of participation. In what way and to what extent does God participate in this reality? Accordingly, I’ll use two phrases to describe them: limited participation and full participation in this reality. The most common view is a limited participation. There are variations, but here are some:

Limited Participation

• Ground of Being – In this model, God is the power(ground) of being but not a direct participant.
• Sustaining presence – God sustains this reality.
• Divine Energies – This is an Eastern Orthodox model where God’s energies permeate the cosmos. Instead of panentheism, this could also be considered a form of classic theism.
• Process theism – In process theism, God can’t actualize anything in this reality and is restricted to what it calls “lure” or persuasion.
• Embodied participation – the world is God’s body. This is a metaphor but not well unpacked. Still, there seems to be a limitation.

In all of what I’m calling “limited participation,” there is at least one type of participation that is denied. That is God’s participation in specific acts of evil. This would be things like murder, abuse, genocide, natural disasters,  etc. All these models shield God from God getting God’s “hands dirty”. This prevents God from being tainted in God’s so-called perfect goodness, and so there is no full (complete) participation in everything that occurs in this finite reality.

Full Participation
All the major panentheism formulations are of the limited participation type. However, there can be a formulation where there is full participation, including being responsible for specific acts of evil (and good). While still denying that God does acts of evil, the closest I’ve seen is with Hindu philosopher Ramanuja with his qualified monism, and the absolute idealism of Josiah Royce and G.W.F. Hegel. Now, the full participation I’ll be talking about does have other issues that need to be addressed, like human freedom, agency, as well as God’s nature. The full participation model I employ is what I call an aspect monism (a priority monism) and a divine idealism. To get an idea of what this full participation could look like, here’s a summarized explanation of an aspect monism and a divine idealism:

♦ An Aspect Monism – A Divine Life

Often in theological formulations, there is an inherent, stark distinction made between God and the world. This is prominently found in classic theism, where God is unchanging and impassive. Since this reality is finite and contingent, there is a radical ontological difference between God and the world.

An aspect is a part of something. It can also be considered a perspective of the finite entity. It is a distinction, but only within the One — thus the monism. I think “aspect” is an apt term because it can draw some distinction without creating a dualism or stark ontological distinction. I also think people can relate to the term because we all recognize that we have distinct aspects to ourselves while remaining a unity.

Here’s an extremely important consequence of an aspect monism. Since there is this finite reality as an aspect of God, aspects in this reality literally are a part of God. There is no ontological divide. There is no ontology with dualistic tendencies. Now, while this reality is an aspect of God, it is not the only one.  As in panentheism, God also has a transcendent aspect. This is often called the unknowable, abysmal aspect that is the “more” in panentheism.

Another important point is that aspects aren’t to be thought of in isolation. Aspects combine to create more complex aspects.  Here again, you can think of your own body. Each organ or system has certain distinct features and purposes, but they don’t just do what they do in isolation.  Parts affect each other and even change how the different parts function.  Or think about how this reality is constituted by the elemental particles or quantum fields, each an aspect of the whole. While there are distinctions, there are no absolute boundaries. This is why the TDLC theology is called a Communion. Everything is connected and integrated. Since there is this constant integration and interaction between the parts, there is a blurry line when talking about distinctions within the whole.  Distinctions have an independence, but they are also relational within the whole. Here we can think about the connectedness within families, societies, and even the planet and cosmos, where the parts (aspects) affect all the others. The next question could be how to characterize the context within which this complex system of aspects occurs in. Here I think a divine idealism is apt. I talk about this shortly.

There are also some explanatory advantages to an aspect monism.  Dualistic systems have difficulty explaining how free will could work. This is also true for the issue of consciousness (subjective experience).  However, with an aspect monism, both these attributes can find their source as aspects participating in God. If we are distinct and independent aspects of God, then we can share, in a limited way, in God’s ultimate freedom and Mind.

Another important advantage of an aspect monism for theology is that there is no divide to be crossed to commune with God. There is a seamless interrelationship between the aspects of God. Instead of a divide, there is an infinite depth to all of reality. Religions often divide reality into the sacred and the mundane or profane. We can think, instead, of the sacred as that which dwells in all things and seeks to embrace its transcendent divine depth. An aspect monism also dispels the typical conflict between religion and science. If reality is monistic, there is no need to talk about “interventions” of God in this realm. Instead, God’s activity is intrinsic to reality in God’s living aspect. Divine action is not something imposed on the world from the outside but rather the ubiquitous activity of a living God in every moment of life.  From the standpoint of a personal sense of self and action, if we are aspects of God, then we are not fallen creatures but participants (aspects) in the Divine Life with all its challenges and opportunities.

♦ Divine Idealism

There are several types of metaphysical idealism. Essentially, however, it means that this reality is fundamentally mind. How that is fleshed out can vary quite a bit. In the form of divine idealism, I’ll be talking about the ontology that says this reality is part of the Divine Mind. Now, it is important to remember that when we are trying to characterize God, the terms we use are necessarily metaphorical, based on our own language and concepts. So, when I say “Divine Mind,” I’m not suggesting that God has a mind literally just like ours. What I’m saying is that since we have minds, it is reasonable to suggest some metaphorical semblance in God as well.  Metaphors aren’t intended to be taken literally, but hopefully, they point to some deep truth. So, I’ll offer several metaphors to illustrate what this divine idealism entails, and I’ll use a couple of phrases from here on to talk about the distinctions. They are God-as-transcendent and God-as-living. Like in panentheism, God is both transcendent and immanent.

To illustrate this, here are a couple of Venn chart metaphors. For more detail on this, here is an essay.

To illustrate this further, here’s another metaphor from something that might be familiar. The metaphor is Author/Story.  If we think about an author writing a story, what we have is the one mind of the author, but within her mind, there is a part we call a narrative. The author imagines a narrative for the story. She creates characters, environments, places, and events. Now, remember everything is within the author’s mind. Then in her mind, she “plays” each role. Each role may be very different, but the author lives that role according to the role’s attributes, disposition, strengths, and limitations. For the general setting, the author plays the role of the setting and with it, the places and environments.  This setting could be either realistic or fanciful. Then the author plays the role of the characters in her mind, trying to honor who they are and what they might do. These characters could be heroes, villains, ordinary people, or any other character type.  It’s important to note that the author “becomes” that character in order to make it realistic. That role may be very different from the author herself, but she faithfully adopts that role’s characteristics nonetheless.

Now, the author has a general sense of the narrative, but as it proceeds, the author must adapt to what has happened as well as where the author wishes the story to go. Sometimes the narrative may take a turn that even surprises the author.  I have heard (and experienced myself) authors attest to the fact that sometimes the characters surprise the author in what they do.  “Where did that come from?” So, the characters and the environment seem to have a life of their own. This would be an analogy for free will. In this metaphor, the mind is One, the mind of God, but the characters in the story that God creates share in God’s mind and some of its attributes.

It’s important here to emphasize the faithfulness of God in taking on each aspect or role. Not just anything goes. There are constraints that limit what is possible. So, for instance, God, in living the role of the environment, faithfully follows the intentional God-given constraints that the environment conforms to. Those constraints make life possible. This includes both the stability and novelty that are inherent. There are regularities followed faithfully, but there is also novelty being actualized as well.  This has been characterized in science as the statistical nature of how reality is constituted. So, each aspect of the Divine Life lives that life within this boundedness.

Here are links to two more metaphors to illustrate the ontology: Actor/Role, and Role Play Games.

So, at this point, all the optional ontologies besides full participation have dropped out because they violate at least one (often many) criterion. But what is further required is to flesh out the implications of all this for various topics to determine if there could also be problematic issues. Again, this whole process is non-linear.

♦ Implications:

The Divine Life — Constrained Being
What is life? This is a controversial question. Does life require metabolism, replication, complexity, etc? From a theological perspective, however, I would like to focus on a broad feature — constrained being. However life may be defined, it occurs within constraints. There is a structure to the universe, and it is within that structure that beings exist. There are regularities at work that constrain what can happen. There is also novelty inherent, as described by quantum mechanics, but that novelty is also constrained. The Born rule in quantum mechanics is one way it is characterized. Then we have what has been called the “fine-tuning” of many parameters of the universe that are needed for life to exist. The bottom line is that these constraints make life, as we know it, possible. They allow for dynamic processes to occur that support things like energy flow, information transfer, and stability as well as change. To live is to exist but still be constrained in certain ways. So based on this concept (constrained being), all entities in this reality are living — elemental particles, molecules, rocks, plants, animals, human beings, ecosystems, the cosmos, etc.  I think it’s appropriate to include complex systems like the weather as living because individual entities do not live in isolation. They interact and combine to make up other forms of life. For instance, in our own bodies, there are molecules, chemicals, cells, organs, and even bacteria and viruses (some beneficial, some not). If we extend this further, we can think of societies of individuals, the planet itself, and even the cosmos.  I hope this isn’t too obscure, but some term (life) is needed to talk about what is distinct about this reality within God. In this form of divine idealism, everything is living and part of the Divine Life. There is only the One (God), but there is an aspect of God that lives.

The term “Life”, when used with “Divine”, is also a metaphor, but I think it is theologically apt because we as human beings have a deep sense of what that means. In an aspect monism this means that God chose to live — to participate in finite, constrained being. Throughout history, there have been examples similar to this idea in metaphysical and religious literature.  In Christianity, we have the incarnation.  In Hinduism, the avatars. Also in Greek mythology, God takes on human form. In these cases, God incarnates or lives a life in specific individuals. In the Divine Life Communion theology, with its aspect monism, everything in the universe is an aspect of the Divine Life. Everything is an incarnation.

So, how do we make distinctions within the One? As I said, I use the phrases God-as-transcendent and God-as-living to make this distinction. It is not an ontological distinction but rather a distinction within the One.

God-as-transcendent
In most common concepts of God, God is ultimately free and unconstrained by anything. This is in contrast to finite constrained being. While there is a finite universe, God transcends that finitude infinitely. This transcendence is often called the abysmal character of God.

While this reality is finite, God-as-transcendent has been called “the ground” of everything. It is from this ground that everything proceeds. Accordingly, there is a transcendent basis for what we see and feel intuitively. This finite reality is derivative of the transcendent. Things like finite meaning, finite freedom, finite value(morality), finite consciousness, finite purpose, etc. are all a finite share of the ultimate attributes of God-as-transcendent. The qualifier of “finite” means that while there is a share of the transcendent within the finite, there are also limitations inherent in finite being.

God-as-living
In an aspect monism, while God is transcendent, there is also an aspect of God that takes on finite being that we call this reality. In other words, God chose to live. If we understand life as constrained being, then there is a Divine Life. Within the totality of the Divine Life, there are the distinct lives I talked about earlier.  So, God lives each of those lives — thus the term “as”. 

If there are constraints within God, they are intentionally self-imposed constraints. In the Greek language, this is called kenosis, which means self-emptying. We see this sort of idea throughout the history of theological thinking. In Greek mythology, gods or goddesses take on human form. In Christianity, it is found in the incarnation stories. In Hinduism, there are avatars.

This has far-reaching consequences. If God lives each life faithful to the constraints of that life, then that has a profound effect on things like the problem of evil, divine action, prayer, moral sensibilities, etc. I cover those things in other essays, but suffice it to say here that using the term “as” means that God accepts living many roles that may actually conflict with what God-as-transcendent would wish for this world.  Why would this be the case? I think it is the case because each life, no matter how some actions may be contrary to God-as-transcendent’s hope for this world, also presents unique opportunities for what we consider the most laudable features to emerge. Those include things like love, courage, resolve, selflessness, vitality, faith in the face of doubt, and so on. These all entail some risk of falling short. Here’s an essay where I suggest what the divine goals may be.

The Communion
Another important implication of this ontology is that since everything is within the One, then everything is interrelational. While we are distinct individuals, there is no stark line to be drawn between us and everything else.  Everything affects everything else. That should be obvious, as an individual’s thoughts and actions are not just self-contained but reach out from the individual to friends, family, community, the environment, and the world as a whole.

The term “communion” has various meanings, but essentially it means a sharing and participation among individuals.  There is no isolation because there is a constant intermingling of selves with each other and the whole. While this participation can come in the form of interactions via touch, conversation, sight, and so on, it is deeper than that. Since everything is part of God’s life, everything is in an ontological union —  both with God-as-transcendent and God-as-living.  As life proceeds, God-as-transcendent is changed and new possibilities arise. So, God-as-transcendent takes all this into consideration according to God’s divine purposes. This means that decisions made in this reality are not just localized but have a profound effect on what is possible for the future. It is the entire communion that shapes the direction and what is possible for the future.  

Being in a communion means you are not alone.  Your trials and joys are not just yours but those of everything else within God. It also means that what you do is important. No matter your situation in life, how you act and relate means something beyond that situation.  The Divine Life is a communion of all things, each with its own part to play in the grand narrative of this life. While we are individuals with our own lives, we are also important to how this grand divine narrative plays out. Each act of kindness and love contributes to what follows and the direction it takes. 

Meaning and purpose
Obviously, with God as the source of this world, there is an inherent meaning and purpose to it. God has reasons for creating this reality. What those are and how we should respond to them is the challenge of theology and living. As finite creatures, it’s not a simple, straightforward task, but trying to align this life with those purposes can offer meaning to our lives and enhance them.

The Problem of Evil
This is perhaps the most challenging issue for theism.  I think it requires mitigating factors. First, in order for there to be life, there must be a certain structure to reality that will support it. That structure, however, can give rise to both the good and evil. One might think of this as yin/yang — opposites that, as they interact, create the life we see. In order for there to be life, the potential for evil is a necessary component. No “dark” also means there is no “light”.

Second, who suffers? In an aspect monism, it is literally God who suffers as each aspect. God does not “stand from afar” and watch the evil and suffering. God lives each life and experiences both the joys as well as the suffering. God also both creates the good and evil (faithfully adopting each role). The idea that God actually does the evil is hard to accept, but if God is not just some bystander, then it is an inevitable conclusion. Ultimately God is responsible for the evil anyway, but if God chose to live lives faithfully and experience the consequences, perhaps that is a mitigating factor. It means that there is something so important about living constrained being that God was willing to accept within God’s self the consequences.

Teleology (divine activity and science)
This is another difficult area for theology. Is God active in how this reality takes shape and evolves? If God is not just a passive observer, then how does God act in this world? This is where a divine idealism offers a radical alternative to the ubiquitous presupposition that reality is constituted nonintentionally via necessity and chance (laws and quantum chance). Instead of this, a divine idealism says that every event in the universe is intentional. There are intentional regularities that science tries to characterize, and there is intentional novelty as well, where quantum events are seen as an intentional choice in the Divine Mind between possible actualities. Accordingly, there is no supernaturalism (interventionism) because there is nothing to interfere with. Both regularities and novelties are intentional. Here’s an essay on divine action.

World assessment (good/bad)
Since, in an aspect monism and divine idealism there is no ontological divide, this means that reality is exactly as God has planned. God takes on finite life and lives each life according to the purposes God has in mind. There is no fallenness to this creation. Accordingly, this world should be affirmed and not seen as fundamentally flawed and needing a “fix”. Certainly, there are problems to be aggressively addressed, but these problems do not reflect a fundamental flaw in this reality but rather the meaning that life has to offer, where the good is strived for even amidst the challenges of finite being.

Free will
Since God is ultimately free and everything is an aspect of the Divine Mind, this means that God’s ultimate freedom is shared with each aspect within the constraints inherent in each life. This is an important point. Individual lives have their own independence from God-as-transcendent. The Divine Life is not a dictatorial system. Since those lives have finite freedom, they can make their own choices and are responsible for them. Here’s a link to an essay on this.

Morality
There is a divine meaning and purpose to this Divine Life. However, since this is finite life, there are competing goals at work. God-as-transcendent has certain hopes for how this reality takes shape. I think those hopes include the creation of love, beauty, and meaning. But since there is also a finite freedom in play, those hopes may or may not be chosen. There are moral choices to be made in every moment of life. Are the choices made in line with what God would like for this reality or not? Since we are finite creatures with limited knowledge, that is the moral challenge with each decision.

Prayer
If God is active in the world, then the question is whether or not we can influence how God constitutes reality.  Prayers of supplication represent an attempt to ask God to actualize reality according to the wishes of the adherent.  Since here we are not talking about a request for supernatural intervention, every prayer of supplication should honor God’s commitment to the ongoing creation of regularities and novelties that make life possible. Accordingly, prayers of supplication shouldn’t seek a disruption of that commitment but rather a hope that within that commitment God can shape reality toward some noble and faithful request.

Consciousness (subjective experience)
Subjective experience has long been seen to be problematic for a putative materialistic scientific worldview. The question is: how can subjective experience be explained in a materialistic scheme? While this question has been around for millennia, there has recently been a resurgence of various models to address this problem. In a divine idealism where everything is mental, there is no ontological (mind/body) problem to be resolved because reality is constituted mentally in the Mind of God. Accordingly, subjective experience is not some foreign phenomenon to be explained but rather an inherent feature of mind.

♦ A Hope
While I have presented here my approach to developing a systematic theology “from scratch”, I realize that I also operated within my own personal bubble.  The theology I developed works for me, but that is a subjective opinion.  The major religious traditions emerged out of a fertile and vast environment of metaphysical speculation.  Certain traditions took hold and became prominent.  But that was then, and although the traditions still have many adherents, there is a growing discomfort with them.  They aren’t meeting the needs and intuitions of more and more people.

As the theological landscape changes with new variations, there won’t be just one new theological formulation that finds traction and speaks to the meaning and longings of the many. Pluralism is needed because it represents the opportunity for dialog and spiritual growth.  My hope is for multitudes of thinkers to take up the task of developing theologies more relevant and meaningful for those seekers.

Thanks for your time and attention.